You posted this map from Britain Begins. As remarked earlier, the work would pobably be somewhat outdated by the time it was published - but surely Cunliffe is aware of the new evidence against this theory?

Genetics is not his field, but a book in 2012 claiming R1b is Cro-Magnon feels about as ancient as the people it supposedly originated with!

I also felt uncomfortable about references to Sykes and Openheimer which appears dated now and Cunliffe acknowledged up front that this is not his area of expertise. I would never criticise these pioneers as they were the first to put a stake in the ground and certainly had an influence on my interest in this hobby. Remember Myres had M269 expanding in Anatolia in the Holecene. R1b is far upstream of M269. BTW the map as regards R1b clade frequencies is still pretty accurate. My particular interests are the sub clades of R1b from M269 - DF21. However if you look at the most recent studies with a mixture of NGS SNPs and STRs such as Patterson, Tyler Smith, Busby, Myres and more recently Dienekes and some of the hobbyists, they are all coming to a similar conclusion. R1b expanded in the Neolithic probably from Anatolia or the Womb of Nations. This is only one of three equivilant Neolithic expansions in the history of Homo Sapiens, and the most extreme, the others being Han and Bantu. It would appear, they migrated West probably along the Meditteranean Littoral, and inland along the Danube, and Great Rivers and expanded as Bell Beaker in Iberia circa 4000 BCE and developed as P312 which expanded as U152 inland and L21 along the Atlantic Facade and expanded further under founder effect in the Isles. It will be interesting to see what Geno 2.0 (150K SNPs) has to say about this as R1b and Cro Magnon belonged to the era of Geno 1.0 (12 STRs). As we learn more from better data hopefully we adapt our models.

I certainly agree that the Kurgan theory does require all sorts of mental gymnastics to extend into much of Europe. That is not to say it is wrong but its clearly not self evident. Behavoural changes swept Europe in the copper age but there is no simply trail to show the human aspect at it. H&H map of Kurgan influences falls massively short of anything convincing in the western half of Europe. I tend to be suspicious of anything that diverges so far from Occam's Razor and virtually all copper age explanations for the extension of IE languages into the western half of Europe do suffer from that IMO. I say suspicious but I am not dismissing it. Some things just are complex.

I always wondered why people on these forums never chanced upon the well studied exchange between Corded Ware groups from Eastern Europe and Bell Beaker groups from Western Europe in Central Europe during the Copper Age? Basically, it seems that these two cultural horizons met in what is now Germany and Austria and exchanged ideas, women and genes.

This theory has been studied by archeologists, anthropologists and now geneticists, with solid results, and is actually a mainstream theory.

Wouldn't it explain quite well how Western Europe was Indo-Europeanized from the east, while at the same time keeping high levels of R1b?

I'm currently working on the idea that r1a1a spread from central Europe to the steppes by means of Corded Ware (went east) and Catacomb (went south).

Are you still sympathetic to this idea?

As for your theory on R1b, western europe, and IE, it doesn't make anything more simple. The very idea actually makes things more complicated, much more! Instead of just saying that IE r1b people came from the Eastern Europe, you propose that r1b came from the middle east, dominated Western European ydna, then went to central Europe where they only exchanged women (autosomal DNA but not ydna), and language, then they spread west again to admix with iberians and what not, all while leaving more diversity in central/eastern Europe...

Also, others have mapped out anthropological movements heading west at the right time for r1b.

"Basically, it seems that these two cultural horizons met in what is now Germany and Austria and exchanged ideas, women and genes."

Just to expand on my last comment. This aspect of your theory requires a huge exchange of autosomal dna and linguistic domination without significant changes to ydna. And when I say huge exchanges I'm not just talking about changing the Eastern bell beakers but changing a large number of bell beakers who then radically change western beakers. All based on a border zone...

"This theory has been studied by archeologists, anthropologists and now geneticists, with solid results, and is actually a mainstream theory."

I haven't seen this. I haven't really seen any evidence for it either.

"Basically, it seems that these two cultural horizons met in what is now Germany and Austria and exchanged ideas, women and genes."

Just to expand on my last comment. This aspect of your theory requires a huge exchange of autosomal dna and linguistic domination without significant changes to ydna. And when I say huge exchanges I'm not just talking about changing the Eastern bell beakers but changing a large number of bell beakers who then radically change western beakers. All based on a border zone...

"This theory has been studied by archeologists, anthropologists and now geneticists, with solid results, and is actually a mainstream theory."

I haven't seen this. I haven't really seen any evidence for it either.

The fact that it's complicated doesn't mean it's not scientific or plausible.

I always wondered why people on these forums never chanced upon the well studied exchange between Corded Ware groups from Eastern Europe and Bell Beaker groups from Western Europe in Central Europe during the Copper Age? Basically, it seems that these two cultural horizons met in what is now Germany and Austria and exchanged ideas, women and genes.

This theory has been studied by archeologists, anthropologists and now geneticists, with solid results, and is actually a mainstream theory.

Wouldn't it explain quite well how Western Europe was Indo-Europeanized from the east, while at the same time keeping high levels of R1b?

It would explain it quite well if it weren't that Indo-European people (single grave prestige burials with axes, copper daggers, drinking cups) were not already in places like North and West Italy 800 years before Bell Beaker/Corded Ware and even slightly before Yamnaya came into existence.

It would explain it quite well if it weren't that Indo-European people (single grave prestige burials with axes, copper daggers, drinking cups) were not already in places like North and West Italy 800 years before Bell Beaker/Corded Ware and even slightly before Yamnaya came into existence.

It would explain it quite well if it weren't that Indo-European people (single grave prestige burials with axes, copper daggers, drinking cups) were not already in places like North and West Italy 800 years before Bell Beaker/Corded Ware and even slightly before Yamnaya came into existence.

How do you know they were Indo-Europeans?

How does anyone know any of these prehistoric groups was Indo-European-speaking prior to the invention of writing? The fact is, we don't really know that about any of them.

All of these claims involve long and tenuous lines of often convoluted and arcane (and largely soporific) argument.

That's why I have come to the conclusion that they are mostly bovine excrement, much of it stimulated by national, ethnic and even, since the advent of y-dna testing, haplogroup pride, and best avoided.

It would explain it quite well if it weren't that Indo-European people (single grave prestige burials with axes, copper daggers, drinking cups) were not already in places like North and West Italy 800 years before Bell Beaker/Corded Ware and even slightly before Yamnaya came into existence.

How do you know they were Indo-Europeans?

I don't, it is as per both Mallory and Gimbutas. It worked to support their Kurgan theories up until five years ago when radiocarbon dating started to show, like I mentioned above, that most of these groups pre-date CW/BB and the Yamnaya expansion into the Carpathias significantly and the very existence of the Yamnaya Culture in the Ukraine. If there was ever a Kurgan invasion from the Steppe into Italy (and I'm still not convinced there ever was), it must have pre-dated Yamnaya. Perhaps Kemi-Oba as they were the original Ukrainian stelae makers and were confined mostly to the Crimean Peninsula.

I don't, it is as per both Mallory and Gimbutas. It worked to support their Kurgan theories up until five years ago when radiocarbon dating started to show, like I mentioned above, that most of these groups pre-date CW/BB and the Yamnaya expansion into the Carpathias significantly and the very existence of the Yamnaya Culture in the Ukraine. If there was ever a Kurgan invasion from the Steppe into Italy (and I'm still not convinced there ever was), it must have pre-dated Yamnaya. Perhaps Kemi-Oba as they were the original Ukrainian stelae makers and were confined mostly to the Crimean Peninsula.

The argument that CW introduced IE into BB (and Abashevo) and therefore can explain all IE-speaking fails at the first hurdle, which is that CW contacts cannot explain the Anatolian and Tocharian branches. CW also cannot explain the Illyrian, Greek and Armenian branches. I won't enter into the complex arguments over the origins of BB. It isn't necessary. There is no evidence of any kind to support CW as the PIE homeland.

I'm currently working on the idea that r1a1a spread from central Europe to the steppes by means of Corded Ware (went east) and Catacomb (went south).

Are you still sympathetic to this idea?

As for your theory on R1b, western europe, and IE, it doesn't make anything more simple. The very idea actually makes things more complicated, much more! Instead of just saying that IE r1b people came from the Eastern Europe, you propose that r1b came from the middle east, dominated Western European ydna, then went to central Europe where they only exchanged women (autosomal DNA but not ydna), and language, then they spread west again to admix with iberians and what not, all while leaving more diversity in central/eastern Europe...

Also, others have mapped out anthropological movements heading west at the right time for r1b.

Corded Ware basically did spread late to the steppes western edges from central Europe. That is accepted by most. As for how languages and DNA tie in it is guessology because we pretty well lack yDNA in eastern Europe from 4000-2000BC. As far as I understand R1a pre-2000BC has only so far been found in corded ware in germany. Until that changes I wouldnt your alternative. As I have said before I have no faith at all in physical anthropology so I would ignore that. Actually Corded Ware (and even the tail end of TRB in the same area) clearly was in the zone of early contact with the secondary products like the wheel etc so few of the linguistic arguements against PIE in Corded Ware would apply.

What is harder to sell is the idea that the fairly late thrust of Corded Ware to the Russia was responsible for R1a there and its spread east, However, there certainly was an idea that the Russian Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture which had strong Corded Ware links was certainly once linked with the Sintashta culture which precedes Andronovo. Both of them have been linked to the Indo-Iranian group and that would kind of create the required west to east link between corded ware, Sintashta, Andronovo, the first steppes ancient DNA R1a and the presence of R1a in Indi-Iranian populations. However the experts in that area change their minds a lot.

Actually Corded Ware (and even the tail end of TRB in the same area) clearly was in the zone of early contact with the secondary products like the wheel etc so few of the linguistic arguements against PIE in Corded Ware would apply.

I'm not sure if you're talking about me but... I definitely don't think Corded Ware, or central Europe, is where PIE started.

I think PIE started in the steppes. I think IE people from the steppes traveled to the CW region and brought genes, culture, and language. I also think IE people from the western steppes brought r1b and language to Western Europe, largely via eastern bell beakers.

I think there is certainly room for r1a1a originating in eastern central Europe, then spreading west and south often times introducing its aquired IE. I actually think an r1a1a origin in central Europe is reasonable.

What about physical anthropology do you not trust? Do you think craniometry has merit for the questions we typically have?

Actually Corded Ware (and even the tail end of TRB in the same area) clearly was in the zone of early contact with the secondary products like the wheel etc so few of the linguistic arguements against PIE in Corded Ware would apply.

I'm not sure if you're talking about me but... I definitely don't think Corded Ware, or central Europe, is where PIE started.

I think PIE started in the steppes. I think IE people from the steppes traveled to the CW region and brought genes, culture, and language. I also think IE people from the western steppes brought r1b and language to Western Europe, largely via eastern bell beakers.

I think there is certainly room for r1a1a originating in eastern central Europe, then spreading west and south often times introducing its aquired IE. I actually think an r1a1a origin in central Europe is reasonable.

What about physical anthropology do you not trust? Do you think craniometry has merit for the questions we typically have?

Yeah I thought it was R1a originating in central Europe you meant. I was trying to say I wouldnt rule that out myself either as yet. I cant see any overriding reason why it could not have reached the steppe from east central Europe and worked it way ultimately into Andronova as outlined above. The reason why I mentioned physical anthropology is it tends to get cited in the IE discussions. However, it is clearly drastically affected by so I dont really put any faith in it at all.

Yeah I thought it was R1a originating in central Europe you meant. I was trying to say I wouldnt rule that out myself either as yet. I cant see any overriding reason why it could not have reached the steppe from east central Europe and worked it way ultimately into Andronova as outlined above. The reason why I mentioned physical anthropology is it tends to get cited in the IE discussions. However, it is clearly drastically affected by so I dont really put any faith in it at all.

Eastern Europe was overwhelmingly populated from East Central Europe in several waves after the LGM. That's basically the concept that has now been accepted by the main scientists working on this problem. We'll be seeing quite a few papers on that theme in the coming years IMO.

If true, and I think it is, then it's difficult to see R1a, the most common Eastern European Y-DNA haplogroup, not coming from the same source as the vast majority of modern Eastern European DNA.

That's one of the main reasons I find it difficult to accept a steppe origin of Indo-European languages, and I think the most plausible explanation is that they originally came from East Central Europe, with the first main push of R-M417 out of the region. However, it's possible that the spread of proto-Indo-European was a back migration of R1a from the steppe to Central Europe.

Yeah I thought it was R1a originating in central Europe you meant. I was trying to say I wouldnt rule that out myself either as yet. I cant see any overriding reason why it could not have reached the steppe from east central Europe and worked it way ultimately into Andronova as outlined above. The reason why I mentioned physical anthropology is it tends to get cited in the IE discussions. However, it is clearly drastically affected by so I dont really put any faith in it at all.

Eastern Europe was overwhelmingly populated from East Central Europe in several waves after the LGM. That's basically the concept that has now been accepted by the main scientists working on this problem. We'll be seeing quite a few papers on that theme in the coming years IMO.

If true, and I think it is, then it's difficult to see R1a, the most common Eastern European Y-DNA haplogroup, not coming from the same source as the vast majority of modern Eastern European DNA.

That's one of the main reasons I find it difficult to accept a steppe origin of Indo-European languages, and I think the most plausible explanation is that they originally came from East Central Europe, with the first main push of R-M417 out of the region. However, it's possible that the spread of proto-Indo-European was a back migration of R1a from the steppe to Central Europe.

I certainly feel its still an open question. There are just not enough ancient DNA datapoints as yet to conclude much.

It would explain it quite well if it weren't that Indo-European people (single grave prestige burials with axes, copper daggers, drinking cups) were not already in places like North and West Italy 800 years before Bell Beaker/Corded Ware and even slightly before Yamnaya came into existence.

Quote from: rms2

How does anyone know any of these prehistoric groups was Indo-European-speaking prior to the invention of writing? The fact is, we don't really know that about any of them.

I don't, it is as per both Mallory and Gimbutas. It worked to support their Kurgan theories up until five years ago when radiocarbon dating started to show, like I mentioned above, that most of these groups pre-date CW/BB and the Yamnaya expansion into the Carpathias significantly and the very existence of the Yamnaya Culture in the Ukraine. If there was ever a Kurgan invasion from the Steppe into Italy (and I'm still not convinced there ever was), it must have pre-dated Yamnaya. Perhaps Kemi-Oba as they were the original Ukrainian stelae makers and were confined mostly to the Crimean Peninsula.

1. We don't need Yamnaya influence in Italy, because Indo-European language did not spread to Italy directly from the steppe. There were many steps of expansion.2. Archaeological continuity does not correspond linguistic continuity.http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html(Here you can see how NOT to date and locate languages...)